I definitely think there is. Both movements think they're fighting a serious injustice, and have compared the killings of the individuals they care about to the Holocaust. To quote Carol J. Adams:

"A woman attempts to enter a building. Others, amassed outside, try to thwart her attempt. They shout at her, physically block her way, frantically call her names, pleading with her to respect life. Is she buying a fur coat or getting an abortion?"

Extremists of all types have a lot in common. Anti-abortionists have killed for their cause, as have utra-nationalist patriots and religious zealots of all stripes and shades. Even soccer fans can get violent over something that most of us find of trifing significance.

If someone becomes 'fanatical' then they lose perspective and behave as a fanatic - what they are fanatical about is almost irrelevant.

At 8/3/2015 8:47:41 PM, Dookieman wrote:Are there similarities between the anti-abortion and animal movement?

I definitely think there is. Both movements think they're fighting a serious injustice, and have compared the killings of the individuals they care about to the Holocaust. To quote Carol J. Adams:

"A woman attempts to enter a building. Others, amassed outside, try to thwart her attempt. They shout at her, physically block her way, frantically call her names, pleading with her to respect life. Is she buying a fur coat or getting an abortion?"

On one they are protesting something one has already done and are looking for vengeance. The other they are trying to prevent an action from being completed.

The fact that they engage in similar actions has nothing to do with the morality of either cause.

At 8/3/2015 9:26:12 PM, kp98 wrote:Extremists of all types have a lot in common. Anti-abortionists have killed for their cause, as have utra-nationalist patriots and religious zealots of all stripes and shades. Even soccer fans can get violent over something that most of us find of trifing significance.

If someone becomes 'fanatical' then they lose perspective and behave as a fanatic - what they are fanatical about is almost irrelevant.

I'm not justifying their actions, but I have a question for you. If you lived in Nazi Germany and you knew your neighbour operated the gas chambers, and you knew what was being done. What would you do? Do you think you'd be justified in attacking him?

At 8/3/2015 8:47:41 PM, Dookieman wrote:Are there similarities between the anti-abortion and animal movement?

I definitely think there is. Both movements think they're fighting a serious injustice, and have compared the killings of the individuals they care about to the Holocaust. To quote Carol J. Adams:

"A woman attempts to enter a building. Others, amassed outside, try to thwart her attempt. They shout at her, physically block her way, frantically call her names, pleading with her to respect life. Is she buying a fur coat or getting an abortion?"

On one they are protesting something one has already done and are looking for vengeance. The other they are trying to prevent an action from being completed.

The animal people are also trying to prevent an action from being completed - i.e., the purchase of the fur coat. If a woman buys a fur coat she contributes to the continued existence of an industry that profits off the exploitation of animals. So, if one prevents her from buying the coat, she will not support the suffering that is inflicted on the animals that are killed for their fur. This is a virtue because it will reduce demand for the product being sold. One person might not do much to reduce suffering, but if a number of people join in on the boycott that can make a difference.

The fact that they engage in similar actions has nothing to do with the morality of either cause.

At 8/3/2015 8:47:41 PM, Dookieman wrote:Are there similarities between the anti-abortion and animal movement?

I definitely think there is. Both movements think they're fighting a serious injustice, and have compared the killings of the individuals they care about to the Holocaust. To quote Carol J. Adams:

"A woman attempts to enter a building. Others, amassed outside, try to thwart her attempt. They shout at her, physically block her way, frantically call her names, pleading with her to respect life. Is she buying a fur coat or getting an abortion?"

On one they are protesting something one has already done and are looking for vengeance. The other they are trying to prevent an action from being completed.

The animal people are also trying to prevent an action from being completed - i.e., the purchase of the fur coat. If a woman buys a fur coat she contributes to the continued existence of an industry that profits off the exploitation of animals. So, if one prevents her from buying the coat, she will not support the suffering that is inflicted on the animals that are killed for their fur. This is a virtue because it will reduce demand for the product being sold. One person might not do much to reduce suffering, but if a number of people join in on the boycott that can make a difference.

I get your point now. The last time I'd heard of this type thing was when there was a social event being held and they were protesting the people entering the soiree in their furs.

I would liken your argument more to the recent outrage over the recent scandal of selling the body parts of the unborn by PP, than to the abortion itself.

The fact that they engage in similar actions has nothing to do with the morality of either cause.

I'm not justifying their actions, but I have a question for you. If you lived in Nazi Germany and you knew your neighbour operated the gas chambers, and you knew what was being done. What would you do? Do you think you'd be justified in attacking him?

Just curious.

I don't see the connection, but it would be rude to ignore a direct question.Well, is he doing it because he is a fanatical anti-semitic nazi or because he was starving and desperate for a job? Even in the former case I wouldn't attack him physically - it would be a pointless, futile and suicidally dangerous thing to do in Nazi germany.

Is it worth pointing out that anti-abortionists have killed for their cause, which AFAIK pro-abortionists haven't. White supremacists, black power advocates, Irish republicans, Irish loyalists, Zionists, anti-zionists, the ALF, al Queda, - their ideologies are wildly different, but their tactics aren't.

At 8/5/2015 6:28:30 PM, kp98 wrote:I'm not justifying their actions, but I have a question for you. If you lived in Nazi Germany and you knew your neighbour operated the gas chambers, and you knew what was being done. What would you do? Do you think you'd be justified in attacking him?

Just curious.

I don't see the connection, but it would be rude to ignore a direct question.Well, is he doing it because he is a fanatical anti-semitic nazi or because he was starving and desperate for a job? Even in the former case I wouldn't attack him physically - it would be a pointless, futile and suicidally dangerous thing to do in Nazi germany.

Just to keep going with the thought experiment. If that same man was going to pick your family up tomorrow morning to take your family to the gas chamber, would you kill him to stop him if it was necessary?

On another track, would you leave Germany (assuming you could), and join an Allied army in order to bring this to an end?

Is it worth pointing out that anti-abortionists have killed for their cause, which AFAIK pro-abortionists haven't.

At 8/3/2015 8:47:41 PM, Dookieman wrote:Are there similarities between the anti-abortion and animal movement?

I definitely think there is. Both movements think they're fighting a serious injustice, and have compared the killings of the individuals they care about to the Holocaust. To quote Carol J. Adams:

"A woman attempts to enter a building. Others, amassed outside, try to thwart her attempt. They shout at her, physically block her way, frantically call her names, pleading with her to respect life. Is she buying a fur coat or getting an abortion?"

She's buying a coat made of fetuses.

Everyone stands on their own dung hill and speaks out about someone else's - Nathan KrusemarkIts easier to criticize and hate than it is to support and create - I Ron Slippers

At 8/5/2015 6:28:30 PM, kp98 wrote:I'm not justifying their actions, but I have a question for you. If you lived in Nazi Germany and you knew your neighbour operated the gas chambers, and you knew what was being done. What would you do? Do you think you'd be justified in attacking him?

Just curious.

I don't see the connection, but it would be rude to ignore a direct question.Well, is he doing it because he is a fanatical anti-semitic nazi or because he was starving and desperate for a job? Even in the former case I wouldn't attack him physically - it would be a pointless, futile and suicidally dangerous thing to do in Nazi germany.

Just to keep going with the thought experiment. If that same man was going to pick your family up tomorrow morning to take your family to the gas chamber, would you kill him to stop him if it was necessary?

On another track, would you leave Germany (assuming you could), and join an Allied army in order to bring this to an end?

Is it worth pointing out that anti-abortionists have killed for their cause, which AFAIK pro-abortionists haven't.

At 8/5/2015 6:28:30 PM, kp98 wrote:I'm not justifying their actions, but I have a question for you. If you lived in Nazi Germany and you knew your neighbour operated the gas chambers, and you knew what was being done. What would you do? Do you think you'd be justified in attacking him?

Just curious.

I don't see the connection, but it would be rude to ignore a direct question.Well, is he doing it because he is a fanatical anti-semitic nazi or because he was starving and desperate for a job? Even in the former case I wouldn't attack him physically - it would be a pointless, futile and suicidally dangerous thing to do in Nazi germany.

Just to keep going with the thought experiment. If that same man was going to pick your family up tomorrow morning to take your family to the gas chamber, would you kill him to stop him if it was necessary?

On another track, would you leave Germany (assuming you could), and join an Allied army in order to bring this to an end?

Is it worth pointing out that anti-abortionists have killed for their cause, which AFAIK pro-abortionists haven't.

At 8/5/2015 6:28:30 PM, kp98 wrote:I'm not justifying their actions, but I have a question for you. If you lived in Nazi Germany and you knew your neighbour operated the gas chambers, and you knew what was being done. What would you do? Do you think you'd be justified in attacking him?

Just curious.

I don't see the connection, but it would be rude to ignore a direct question.Well, is he doing it because he is a fanatical anti-semitic nazi or because he was starving and desperate for a job? Even in the former case I wouldn't attack him physically - it would be a pointless, futile and suicidally dangerous thing to do in Nazi germany.

Just to keep going with the thought experiment. If that same man was going to pick your family up tomorrow morning to take your family to the gas chamber, would you kill him to stop him if it was necessary?

On another track, would you leave Germany (assuming you could), and join an Allied army in order to bring this to an end?

Is it worth pointing out that anti-abortionists have killed for their cause, which AFAIK pro-abortionists haven't.

At 8/5/2015 6:28:30 PM, kp98 wrote:I'm not justifying their actions, but I have a question for you. If you lived in Nazi Germany and you knew your neighbour operated the gas chambers, and you knew what was being done. What would you do? Do you think you'd be justified in attacking him?

Just curious.

I don't see the connection, but it would be rude to ignore a direct question.Well, is he doing it because he is a fanatical anti-semitic nazi or because he was starving and desperate for a job? Even in the former case I wouldn't attack him physically - it would be a pointless, futile and suicidally dangerous thing to do in Nazi germany.

Just to keep going with the thought experiment. If that same man was going to pick your family up tomorrow morning to take your family to the gas chamber, would you kill him to stop him if it was necessary?

On another track, would you leave Germany (assuming you could), and join an Allied army in order to bring this to an end?

Is it worth pointing out that anti-abortionists have killed for their cause, which AFAIK pro-abortionists haven't.

At 8/5/2015 6:28:30 PM, kp98 wrote:I'm not justifying their actions, but I have a question for you. If you lived in Nazi Germany and you knew your neighbour operated the gas chambers, and you knew what was being done. What would you do? Do you think you'd be justified in attacking him?

Just curious.

I don't see the connection, but it would be rude to ignore a direct question.Well, is he doing it because he is a fanatical anti-semitic nazi or because he was starving and desperate for a job? Even in the former case I wouldn't attack him physically - it would be a pointless, futile and suicidally dangerous thing to do in Nazi germany.

Just to keep going with the thought experiment. If that same man was going to pick your family up tomorrow morning to take your family to the gas chamber, would you kill him to stop him if it was necessary?

On another track, would you leave Germany (assuming you could), and join an Allied army in order to bring this to an end?

Is it worth pointing out that anti-abortionists have killed for their cause, which AFAIK pro-abortionists haven't.

You kill countless bacteria when you brush your teeth. And yet none of them are homo sapiens...

Humans. Pro-abortionists kill thousands of humans every single day.

But what makes these humans so special, is it because they have the largest penises out of all primates? Why are humans valued but not other animals?

I never said other animals are not valuable, but they are inherently less valuable. We are inherently rational creatures - which is why we are considered people and they are not.

And how do you know that a fetus is rational, after all for a large part of the pregnancy (the part where most abortions take place) the fetus does not have a functioning brain. Why should a fetus which has not developed brain activity be treated as a person when a rat who does have a functioning brain is not.

At 8/5/2015 6:28:30 PM, kp98 wrote:I'm not justifying their actions, but I have a question for you. If you lived in Nazi Germany and you knew your neighbour operated the gas chambers, and you knew what was being done. What would you do? Do you think you'd be justified in attacking him?

Just curious.

I don't see the connection, but it would be rude to ignore a direct question.Well, is he doing it because he is a fanatical anti-semitic nazi or because he was starving and desperate for a job? Even in the former case I wouldn't attack him physically - it would be a pointless, futile and suicidally dangerous thing to do in Nazi germany.

Just to keep going with the thought experiment. If that same man was going to pick your family up tomorrow morning to take your family to the gas chamber, would you kill him to stop him if it was necessary?

On another track, would you leave Germany (assuming you could), and join an Allied army in order to bring this to an end?

Is it worth pointing out that anti-abortionists have killed for their cause, which AFAIK pro-abortionists haven't.

You kill countless bacteria when you brush your teeth. And yet none of them are homo sapiens...

Humans. Pro-abortionists kill thousands of humans every single day.

But what makes these humans so special, is it because they have the largest penises out of all primates? Why are humans valued but not other animals?

I never said other animals are not valuable, but they are inherently less valuable. We are inherently rational creatures - which is why we are considered people and they are not.

And how do you know that a fetus is rational, after all for a large part of the pregnancy (the part where most abortions take place) the fetus does not have a functioning brain. Why should a fetus which has not developed brain activity be treated as a person when a rat who does have a functioning brain is not.

A person is an individual substance of a rational nature. - Boethius

Personhood is thus an inherent quality of the organism because rationality is an inherent quality of the organism.

The nature of all humans is to be rational creatures. As rats are never rational creatures, it is not in their nature to be rational. Thus rats are not people.

At 8/5/2015 6:28:30 PM, kp98 wrote:I'm not justifying their actions, but I have a question for you. If you lived in Nazi Germany and you knew your neighbour operated the gas chambers, and you knew what was being done. What would you do? Do you think you'd be justified in attacking him?

Just curious.

I don't see the connection, but it would be rude to ignore a direct question.Well, is he doing it because he is a fanatical anti-semitic nazi or because he was starving and desperate for a job? Even in the former case I wouldn't attack him physically - it would be a pointless, futile and suicidally dangerous thing to do in Nazi germany.

Just to keep going with the thought experiment. If that same man was going to pick your family up tomorrow morning to take your family to the gas chamber, would you kill him to stop him if it was necessary?

On another track, would you leave Germany (assuming you could), and join an Allied army in order to bring this to an end?

Is it worth pointing out that anti-abortionists have killed for their cause, which AFAIK pro-abortionists haven't.

You kill countless bacteria when you brush your teeth. And yet none of them are homo sapiens...

Humans. Pro-abortionists kill thousands of humans every single day.

But what makes these humans so special, is it because they have the largest penises out of all primates? Why are humans valued but not other animals?

I never said other animals are not valuable, but they are inherently less valuable. We are inherently rational creatures - which is why we are considered people and they are not.

And how do you know that a fetus is rational, after all for a large part of the pregnancy (the part where most abortions take place) the fetus does not have a functioning brain. Why should a fetus which has not developed brain activity be treated as a person when a rat who does have a functioning brain is not.

A person is an individual substance of a rational nature. - Boethius

Personhood is thus an inherent quality of the organism because rationality is an inherent quality of the organism.

The nature of all humans is to be rational creatures. As rats are never rational creatures, it is not in their nature to be rational. Thus rats are not people.

A fetus is not a rational organism either. It lacks the brain developments necessary for rationality.

At 8/5/2015 6:28:30 PM, kp98 wrote:I'm not justifying their actions, but I have a question for you. If you lived in Nazi Germany and you knew your neighbour operated the gas chambers, and you knew what was being done. What would you do? Do you think you'd be justified in attacking him?

Just curious.

I don't see the connection, but it would be rude to ignore a direct question.Well, is he doing it because he is a fanatical anti-semitic nazi or because he was starving and desperate for a job? Even in the former case I wouldn't attack him physically - it would be a pointless, futile and suicidally dangerous thing to do in Nazi germany.

Just to keep going with the thought experiment. If that same man was going to pick your family up tomorrow morning to take your family to the gas chamber, would you kill him to stop him if it was necessary?

On another track, would you leave Germany (assuming you could), and join an Allied army in order to bring this to an end?

Is it worth pointing out that anti-abortionists have killed for their cause, which AFAIK pro-abortionists haven't.

You kill countless bacteria when you brush your teeth. And yet none of them are homo sapiens...

Humans. Pro-abortionists kill thousands of humans every single day.

But what makes these humans so special, is it because they have the largest penises out of all primates? Why are humans valued but not other animals?

I never said other animals are not valuable, but they are inherently less valuable. We are inherently rational creatures - which is why we are considered people and they are not.

And how do you know that a fetus is rational, after all for a large part of the pregnancy (the part where most abortions take place) the fetus does not have a functioning brain. Why should a fetus which has not developed brain activity be treated as a person when a rat who does have a functioning brain is not.

A person is an individual substance of a rational nature. - Boethius

Personhood is thus an inherent quality of the organism because rationality is an inherent quality of the organism.

The nature of all humans is to be rational creatures. As rats are never rational creatures, it is not in their nature to be rational. Thus rats are not people.

A fetus is not a rational organism either. It lacks the brain developments necessary for rationality.

Rationality is an inherent quality of humanity. That we go through periods where we are unable to exercise our rationality does not mean that each of us are not inherently rational creatures.

At 8/5/2015 6:28:30 PM, kp98 wrote:I'm not justifying their actions, but I have a question for you. If you lived in Nazi Germany and you knew your neighbour operated the gas chambers, and you knew what was being done. What would you do? Do you think you'd be justified in attacking him?

Just curious.

I don't see the connection, but it would be rude to ignore a direct question.Well, is he doing it because he is a fanatical anti-semitic nazi or because he was starving and desperate for a job? Even in the former case I wouldn't attack him physically - it would be a pointless, futile and suicidally dangerous thing to do in Nazi germany.

Just to keep going with the thought experiment. If that same man was going to pick your family up tomorrow morning to take your family to the gas chamber, would you kill him to stop him if it was necessary?

On another track, would you leave Germany (assuming you could), and join an Allied army in order to bring this to an end?

Is it worth pointing out that anti-abortionists have killed for their cause, which AFAIK pro-abortionists haven't.

You kill countless bacteria when you brush your teeth. And yet none of them are homo sapiens...

Humans. Pro-abortionists kill thousands of humans every single day.

But what makes these humans so special, is it because they have the largest penises out of all primates? Why are humans valued but not other animals?

I never said other animals are not valuable, but they are inherently less valuable. We are inherently rational creatures - which is why we are considered people and they are not.

And how do you know that a fetus is rational, after all for a large part of the pregnancy (the part where most abortions take place) the fetus does not have a functioning brain. Why should a fetus which has not developed brain activity be treated as a person when a rat who does have a functioning brain is not.

A person is an individual substance of a rational nature. - Boethius

Personhood is thus an inherent quality of the organism because rationality is an inherent quality of the organism.

The nature of all humans is to be rational creatures. As rats are never rational creatures, it is not in their nature to be rational. Thus rats are not people.

A fetus is not a rational organism either. It lacks the brain developments necessary for rationality.

Rationality is an inherent quality of humanity. That we go through periods where we are unable to exercise our rationality does not mean that each of us are not inherently rational creatures.

fetuses are not rational yet plus we do not consider humanity as a whole, we base our treatment on the individual itself. Lastly humans are not inherently rational creatures, the fact that the fetus does not have rationality disproves that concept, seeing how inherently means a permanent attribute.

At 8/5/2015 6:28:30 PM, kp98 wrote:I'm not justifying their actions, but I have a question for you. If you lived in Nazi Germany and you knew your neighbour operated the gas chambers, and you knew what was being done. What would you do? Do you think you'd be justified in attacking him?

Just curious.

I don't see the connection, but it would be rude to ignore a direct question.Well, is he doing it because he is a fanatical anti-semitic nazi or because he was starving and desperate for a job? Even in the former case I wouldn't attack him physically - it would be a pointless, futile and suicidally dangerous thing to do in Nazi germany.

Just to keep going with the thought experiment. If that same man was going to pick your family up tomorrow morning to take your family to the gas chamber, would you kill him to stop him if it was necessary?

On another track, would you leave Germany (assuming you could), and join an Allied army in order to bring this to an end?

Is it worth pointing out that anti-abortionists have killed for their cause, which AFAIK pro-abortionists haven't.

You kill countless bacteria when you brush your teeth. And yet none of them are homo sapiens...

Humans. Pro-abortionists kill thousands of humans every single day.

But what makes these humans so special, is it because they have the largest penises out of all primates? Why are humans valued but not other animals?

I never said other animals are not valuable, but they are inherently less valuable. We are inherently rational creatures - which is why we are considered people and they are not.

And how do you know that a fetus is rational, after all for a large part of the pregnancy (the part where most abortions take place) the fetus does not have a functioning brain. Why should a fetus which has not developed brain activity be treated as a person when a rat who does have a functioning brain is not.

A person is an individual substance of a rational nature. - Boethius

Personhood is thus an inherent quality of the organism because rationality is an inherent quality of the organism.

The nature of all humans is to be rational creatures. As rats are never rational creatures, it is not in their nature to be rational. Thus rats are not people.

A fetus is not a rational organism either. It lacks the brain developments necessary for rationality.

Rationality is an inherent quality of humanity. That we go through periods where we are unable to exercise our rationality does not mean that each of us are not inherently rational creatures.

fetuses are not rational yet plus we do not consider humanity as a whole, we base our treatment on the individual itself. Lastly humans are not inherently rational creatures, the fact that the fetus does not have rationality disproves that concept, seeing how inherently means a permanent attribute.

Fetuses are rational because they have a rational nature. They are merely unable to currently exercise their rationality. Our ability to exercise rational behaviour is the natural state of our species.

Now if your attaining rationality was just basically a flip of the coin, some humans do, some don't - for no apparent reason - then I would fully agree with you. Because then rationality wouldn't be an intrinsic quality.

And we do deal with humanity as a whole. We make the assumption that "all men are created equal" even though they are obviously unequal in both physical and mental ability.

Now if rationality is the determination of personhood, should more rational people have greater rights than less rational people?

At 8/5/2015 6:28:30 PM, kp98 wrote:I'm not justifying their actions, but I have a question for you. If you lived in Nazi Germany and you knew your neighbour operated the gas chambers, and you knew what was being done. What would you do? Do you think you'd be justified in attacking him?

Just curious.

I don't see the connection, but it would be rude to ignore a direct question.Well, is he doing it because he is a fanatical anti-semitic nazi or because he was starving and desperate for a job? Even in the former case I wouldn't attack him physically - it would be a pointless, futile and suicidally dangerous thing to do in Nazi germany.

Just to keep going with the thought experiment. If that same man was going to pick your family up tomorrow morning to take your family to the gas chamber, would you kill him to stop him if it was necessary?

On another track, would you leave Germany (assuming you could), and join an Allied army in order to bring this to an end?

Is it worth pointing out that anti-abortionists have killed for their cause, which AFAIK pro-abortionists haven't.

You kill countless bacteria when you brush your teeth. And yet none of them are homo sapiens...

Humans. Pro-abortionists kill thousands of humans every single day.

But what makes these humans so special, is it because they have the largest penises out of all primates? Why are humans valued but not other animals?

I never said other animals are not valuable, but they are inherently less valuable. We are inherently rational creatures - which is why we are considered people and they are not.

And how do you know that a fetus is rational, after all for a large part of the pregnancy (the part where most abortions take place) the fetus does not have a functioning brain. Why should a fetus which has not developed brain activity be treated as a person when a rat who does have a functioning brain is not.

A person is an individual substance of a rational nature. - Boethius

Personhood is thus an inherent quality of the organism because rationality is an inherent quality of the organism.

The nature of all humans is to be rational creatures. As rats are never rational creatures, it is not in their nature to be rational. Thus rats are not people.

A fetus is not a rational organism either. It lacks the brain developments necessary for rationality.

Rationality is an inherent quality of humanity. That we go through periods where we are unable to exercise our rationality does not mean that each of us are not inherently rational creatures.

fetuses are not rational yet plus we do not consider humanity as a whole, we base our treatment on the individual itself. Lastly humans are not inherently rational creatures, the fact that the fetus does not have rationality disproves that concept, seeing how inherently means a permanent attribute.

Fetuses are rational because they have a rational nature. They are merely unable to currently exercise their rationality. Our ability to exercise rational behaviour is the natural state of our species.

Now if your attaining rationality was just basically a flip of the coin, some humans do, some don't - for no apparent reason - then I would fully agree with you. Because then rationality wouldn't be an intrinsic quality.

And we do deal with humanity as a whole. We make the assumption that "all men are created equal" even though they are obviously unequal in both physical and mental ability.

Now if rationality is the determination of personhood, should more rational people have greater rights than less rational people?

Just because the fetus shares a commonality with fully developed humans (having human DNA) does not automatically give them every characteristic that fully developed humans have. We treat organisms based on what they individually have not based on what the majority have. Just because the vast majority of people have never commited a crime doesnt mean that we treat criminals as if they had never committed a crime. Lastly, rationality is the trait you used to distinguish people from non-people and I also dont like its use for the reason you mentioned above.

At 8/5/2015 6:28:30 PM, kp98 wrote:I'm not justifying their actions, but I have a question for you. If you lived in Nazi Germany and you knew your neighbour operated the gas chambers, and you knew what was being done. What would you do? Do you think you'd be justified in attacking him?

Just curious.

I don't see the connection, but it would be rude to ignore a direct question.Well, is he doing it because he is a fanatical anti-semitic nazi or because he was starving and desperate for a job? Even in the former case I wouldn't attack him physically - it would be a pointless, futile and suicidally dangerous thing to do in Nazi germany.

Just to keep going with the thought experiment. If that same man was going to pick your family up tomorrow morning to take your family to the gas chamber, would you kill him to stop him if it was necessary?

On another track, would you leave Germany (assuming you could), and join an Allied army in order to bring this to an end?

Is it worth pointing out that anti-abortionists have killed for their cause, which AFAIK pro-abortionists haven't.

You kill countless bacteria when you brush your teeth. And yet none of them are homo sapiens...

Humans. Pro-abortionists kill thousands of humans every single day.

But what makes these humans so special, is it because they have the largest penises out of all primates? Why are humans valued but not other animals?

I never said other animals are not valuable, but they are inherently less valuable. We are inherently rational creatures - which is why we are considered people and they are not.

And how do you know that a fetus is rational, after all for a large part of the pregnancy (the part where most abortions take place) the fetus does not have a functioning brain. Why should a fetus which has not developed brain activity be treated as a person when a rat who does have a functioning brain is not.

A person is an individual substance of a rational nature. - Boethius

Personhood is thus an inherent quality of the organism because rationality is an inherent quality of the organism.

The nature of all humans is to be rational creatures. As rats are never rational creatures, it is not in their nature to be rational. Thus rats are not people.

A fetus is not a rational organism either. It lacks the brain developments necessary for rationality.

Rationality is an inherent quality of humanity. That we go through periods where we are unable to exercise our rationality does not mean that each of us are not inherently rational creatures.

fetuses are not rational yet plus we do not consider humanity as a whole, we base our treatment on the individual itself. Lastly humans are not inherently rational creatures, the fact that the fetus does not have rationality disproves that concept, seeing how inherently means a permanent attribute.

Fetuses are rational because they have a rational nature. They are merely unable to currently exercise their rationality. Our ability to exercise rational behaviour is the natural state of our species.

Now if your attaining rationality was just basically a flip of the coin, some humans do, some don't - for no apparent reason - then I would fully agree with you. Because then rationality wouldn't be an intrinsic quality.

And we do deal with humanity as a whole. We make the assumption that "all men are created equal" even though they are obviously unequal in both physical and mental ability.

Now if rationality is the determination of personhood, should more rational people have greater rights than less rational people?

Just because the fetus shares a commonality with fully developed humans (having human DNA) does not automatically give them every characteristic that fully developed humans have.

They are human organisms, and they share human nature. Kindergardeners do not share every characteristic that "fully developed humans" have, that does not deny them personhood.

We treat organisms based on what they individually have not based on what the majority have.

So you've had someone approach you and determine what rights you have? No. You have rights based on the mere fact that you are human.

Just because the vast majority of people have never commited a crime doesnt mean that we treat criminals as if they had never committed a crime.

Precisely! We all have full human rights until your actions have forced society to limit your rights for its own protection.

Lastly, rationality is the trait you used to distinguish people from non-people and I also dont like its use for the reason you mentioned above.

At 8/5/2015 6:28:30 PM, kp98 wrote:I'm not justifying their actions, but I have a question for you. If you lived in Nazi Germany and you knew your neighbour operated the gas chambers, and you knew what was being done. What would you do? Do you think you'd be justified in attacking him?

Just curious.

I don't see the connection, but it would be rude to ignore a direct question.Well, is he doing it because he is a fanatical anti-semitic nazi or because he was starving and desperate for a job? Even in the former case I wouldn't attack him physically - it would be a pointless, futile and suicidally dangerous thing to do in Nazi germany.

Just to keep going with the thought experiment. If that same man was going to pick your family up tomorrow morning to take your family to the gas chamber, would you kill him to stop him if it was necessary?

On another track, would you leave Germany (assuming you could), and join an Allied army in order to bring this to an end?

Is it worth pointing out that anti-abortionists have killed for their cause, which AFAIK pro-abortionists haven't.

You kill countless bacteria when you brush your teeth. And yet none of them are homo sapiens...

Humans. Pro-abortionists kill thousands of humans every single day.

But what makes these humans so special, is it because they have the largest penises out of all primates? Why are humans valued but not other animals?

I never said other animals are not valuable, but they are inherently less valuable. We are inherently rational creatures - which is why we are considered people and they are not.

And how do you know that a fetus is rational, after all for a large part of the pregnancy (the part where most abortions take place) the fetus does not have a functioning brain. Why should a fetus which has not developed brain activity be treated as a person when a rat who does have a functioning brain is not.

A person is an individual substance of a rational nature. - Boethius

Personhood is thus an inherent quality of the organism because rationality is an inherent quality of the organism.

The nature of all humans is to be rational creatures. As rats are never rational creatures, it is not in their nature to be rational. Thus rats are not people.

A fetus is not a rational organism either. It lacks the brain developments necessary for rationality.

Rationality is an inherent quality of humanity. That we go through periods where we are unable to exercise our rationality does not mean that each of us are not inherently rational creatures.

fetuses are not rational yet plus we do not consider humanity as a whole, we base our treatment on the individual itself. Lastly humans are not inherently rational creatures, the fact that the fetus does not have rationality disproves that concept, seeing how inherently means a permanent attribute.

Fetuses are rational because they have a rational nature. They are merely unable to currently exercise their rationality. Our ability to exercise rational behaviour is the natural state of our species.

Now if your attaining rationality was just basically a flip of the coin, some humans do, some don't - for no apparent reason - then I would fully agree with you. Because then rationality wouldn't be an intrinsic quality.

And we do deal with humanity as a whole. We make the assumption that "all men are created equal" even though they are obviously unequal in both physical and mental ability.

Now if rationality is the determination of personhood, should more rational people have greater rights than less rational people?

Just because the fetus shares a commonality with fully developed humans (having human DNA) does not automatically give them every characteristic that fully developed humans have.

They are human organisms, and they share human nature. Kindergardeners do not share every characteristic that "fully developed humans" have, that does not deny them personhood.

We treat organisms based on what they individually have not based on what the majority have.

So you've had someone approach you and determine what rights you have? No. You have rights based on the mere fact that you are human.

Just because the vast majority of people have never commited a crime doesnt mean that we treat criminals as if they had never committed a crime.

Precisely! We all have full human rights until your actions have forced society to limit your rights for its own protection.

Lastly, rationality is the trait you used to distinguish people from non-people and I also dont like its use for the reason you mentioned above.

So then what is your criteria for personhood?

No our rights arn't given to us because we have some human DNA, afterall every single one of our cells is human and living. Also in most industrialized nations abortion is legal, those courts have obviously determined that simply being human isn't what gives you rights. Also criminals arn't the only ones we treat differently than the majority. For example its illigal to have sex with someone below the age of consent due to their state of mind and lack of physical maturity. This is just one example of society treating individuals different based on their stage in development. Lastly criteria for personhood will vary from person to person but I rely on emotional complexity and consciousness. Of course, in the end most of the ways people use to determine personhood would have to accept the vast majority of vertebrates as people before a human fetus could be granted personhood. Ultimately any characteristic a fetus has, other animals will have as well.

No our rights arn't given to us because we have some human DNA, afterall every single one of our cells is human and living.

Actually, a right requires that it is inalienable - otherwise it is not a right, but a privilege granted by the state. Since you are a human and humans are intrinsically rational beings - you have inalienable rights precisely because you are human.

All of our cells are human, but only a zygote is A human. Only a zygote naturally develops into an adult of the species. It is a unique organism.

Also in most industrialized nations abortion is legal, those courts have obviously determined that simply being human isn't what gives you rights.

So when these same nations had abortion as illegal it meant that simply being human is what gave you rights? When the Nazi's made Jews un-persons they were right? When Jim Crow Laws denied blacks as full persons they were right?

Using the law is a poor defense because the judiciary can be wrong.

Also criminals arn't the only ones we treat differently than the majority. For example its illigal to have sex with someone below the age of consent due to their state of mind and lack of physical maturity.

However, it is not illegal for two underage people of the same age to engage in sex. This is because they cannot understand the consequences of their actions. Thus it is a protection against them being taken advantage of.

However, none of this is a denial of rights, but a protection of rights.

This is just one example of society treating individuals different based on their stage in development.

No our rights arn't given to us because we have some human DNA, afterall every single one of our cells is human and living.

Actually, a right requires that it is inalienable - otherwise it is not a right, but a privilege granted by the state. Since you are a human and humans are intrinsically rational beings - you have inalienable rights precisely because you are human.

All of our cells are human, but only a zygote is A human. Only a zygote naturally develops into an adult of the species. It is a unique organism.

Also in most industrialized nations abortion is legal, those courts have obviously determined that simply being human isn't what gives you rights.

So when these same nations had abortion as illegal it meant that simply being human is what gave you rights? When the Nazi's made Jews un-persons they were right? When Jim Crow Laws denied blacks as full persons they were right?

Using the law is a poor defense because the judiciary can be wrong.

Also criminals arn't the only ones we treat differently than the majority. For example its illigal to have sex with someone below the age of consent due to their state of mind and lack of physical maturity.

However, it is not illegal for two underage people of the same age to engage in sex. This is because they cannot understand the consequences of their actions. Thus it is a protection against them being taken advantage of.

However, none of this is a denial of rights, but a protection of rights.

This is just one example of society treating individuals different based on their stage in development.

Lastly criteria for personhood will vary from person to person but I rely on emotional complexity and consciousness.

So in other words it is a subjective criteria, which means that rights are not really rights.

Of course, in the end most of the ways people use to determine personhood would have to accept the vast majority of vertebrates as people before a human fetus could be granted personhood.

Except for the logical one that I presented. Which has only one objective criteria.

Ultimately any characteristic a fetus has, other animals will have as well.

Except for a rational nature intrinsic to our species. No other animal has that - which is precisely why we make use of animals in a way we wouldn't other humans.

Again humans do not have inalienable rights, we are defined by our DNA and because there are many other things that have human DNA but not personhood (human cells, fetuses) it proves that whole concept incorrect. Also its going to take more than comparing them to the nazis to convince courts that a fetus is a person, you actually have to provide evidence that it has the traits for personhood, not just make references to times in which we were wrong about it. Lastly rationality is not intrinsic to our species, after all you still have not proven the fetus has these traits. If you want the fetus to have personhood rights you need to prove that it has the characteristics nessecary.

No our rights arn't given to us because we have some human DNA, afterall every single one of our cells is human and living.

Actually, a right requires that it is inalienable - otherwise it is not a right, but a privilege granted by the state. Since you are a human and humans are intrinsically rational beings - you have inalienable rights precisely because you are human.

All of our cells are human, but only a zygote is A human. Only a zygote naturally develops into an adult of the species. It is a unique organism.

Also in most industrialized nations abortion is legal, those courts have obviously determined that simply being human isn't what gives you rights.

So when these same nations had abortion as illegal it meant that simply being human is what gave you rights? When the Nazi's made Jews un-persons they were right? When Jim Crow Laws denied blacks as full persons they were right?

Using the law is a poor defense because the judiciary can be wrong.

Also criminals arn't the only ones we treat differently than the majority. For example its illigal to have sex with someone below the age of consent due to their state of mind and lack of physical maturity.

However, it is not illegal for two underage people of the same age to engage in sex. This is because they cannot understand the consequences of their actions. Thus it is a protection against them being taken advantage of.

However, none of this is a denial of rights, but a protection of rights.

This is just one example of society treating individuals different based on their stage in development.

Lastly criteria for personhood will vary from person to person but I rely on emotional complexity and consciousness.

So in other words it is a subjective criteria, which means that rights are not really rights.

Of course, in the end most of the ways people use to determine personhood would have to accept the vast majority of vertebrates as people before a human fetus could be granted personhood.

Except for the logical one that I presented. Which has only one objective criteria.

Ultimately any characteristic a fetus has, other animals will have as well.

Except for a rational nature intrinsic to our species. No other animal has that - which is precisely why we make use of animals in a way we wouldn't other humans.

Again humans do not have inalienable rights, we are defined by our DNA and because there are many other things that have human DNA but not personhood (human cells, fetuses) it proves that whole concept incorrect.

If you don't have inalienable rights you have no rights. Assuming that you're American, the foundation of your whole nation is based on the very concept of fundamental rights. If there were no fundamental rights there was no real reason to end slavery. If there are no fundamental rights, the Russian Gulags were perfectly just, and North Korea is just as valid as us in terms of human rights.

Also its going to take more than comparing them to the nazis to convince courts that a fetus is a person, you actually have to provide evidence that it has the traits for personhood, not just make references to times in which we were wrong about it.

Personhood is immaterial if there are no fundamental rights. Personhood becomes merely a word game that we play, because we then become free to include or exclude on a whim.

Lastly rationality is not intrinsic to our species, after all you still have not proven the fetus has these traits.

Rationality is intrinsic because we are naturally ordered to being rational. Gophers do not suddenly write poetry, and humans don't randomly live merely on instinct. We are intrinsically ordered to rationality.

If you want the fetus to have personhood rights you need to prove that it has the characteristics nessecary.

Sure: it is an organism that is intrinsically ordered to rationality. What this does is show that humanity is a subset of personhood, not a superset. Humans are persons, intelligent space aliens would be persons, self realizing computers could be persons, and even angels (if you believe they exist) would be persons.

No our rights arn't given to us because we have some human DNA, afterall every single one of our cells is human and living.

Actually, a right requires that it is inalienable - otherwise it is not a right, but a privilege granted by the state. Since you are a human and humans are intrinsically rational beings - you have inalienable rights precisely because you are human.

All of our cells are human, but only a zygote is A human. Only a zygote naturally develops into an adult of the species. It is a unique organism.

Also in most industrialized nations abortion is legal, those courts have obviously determined that simply being human isn't what gives you rights.

So when these same nations had abortion as illegal it meant that simply being human is what gave you rights? When the Nazi's made Jews un-persons they were right? When Jim Crow Laws denied blacks as full persons they were right?

Using the law is a poor defense because the judiciary can be wrong.

Also criminals arn't the only ones we treat differently than the majority. For example its illigal to have sex with someone below the age of consent due to their state of mind and lack of physical maturity.

However, it is not illegal for two underage people of the same age to engage in sex. This is because they cannot understand the consequences of their actions. Thus it is a protection against them being taken advantage of.

However, none of this is a denial of rights, but a protection of rights.

This is just one example of society treating individuals different based on their stage in development.

Lastly criteria for personhood will vary from person to person but I rely on emotional complexity and consciousness.

So in other words it is a subjective criteria, which means that rights are not really rights.

Of course, in the end most of the ways people use to determine personhood would have to accept the vast majority of vertebrates as people before a human fetus could be granted personhood.

Except for the logical one that I presented. Which has only one objective criteria.

Ultimately any characteristic a fetus has, other animals will have as well.

Except for a rational nature intrinsic to our species. No other animal has that - which is precisely why we make use of animals in a way we wouldn't other humans.

Again humans do not have inalienable rights, we are defined by our DNA and because there are many other things that have human DNA but not personhood (human cells, fetuses) it proves that whole concept incorrect.

If you don't have inalienable rights you have no rights. Assuming that you're American, the foundation of your whole nation is based on the very concept of fundamental rights. If there were no fundamental rights there was no real reason to end slavery. If there are no fundamental rights, the Russian Gulags were perfectly just, and North Korea is just as valid as us in terms of human rights.

Also its going to take more than comparing them to the nazis to convince courts that a fetus is a person, you actually have to provide evidence that it has the traits for personhood, not just make references to times in which we were wrong about it.

Personhood is immaterial if there are no fundamental rights. Personhood becomes merely a word game that we play, because we then become free to include or exclude on a whim.

Lastly rationality is not intrinsic to our species, after all you still have not proven the fetus has these traits.

Rationality is intrinsic because we are naturally ordered to being rational. Gophers do not suddenly write poetry, and humans don't randomly live merely on instinct. We are intrinsically ordered to rationality.

If you want the fetus to have personhood rights you need to prove that it has the characteristics nessecary.

Sure: it is an organism that is intrinsically ordered to rationality. What this does is show that humanity is a subset of personhood, not a superset. Humans are persons, intelligent space aliens would be persons, self realizing computers could be persons, and even angels (if you believe they exist) would be persons.

Is someone in a coma a person? They have no active rationality.

The courts arn't going to give a fetus personhood rights because at some point later in their lives they will develop rationality, and they certainly wont be forcing a woman to give birth to it. You have yet to give a reason that the fetus deserves these rights and its going to take a lot more than saying its "ordered to rationality" (despite not having the trait at that time) to give a fetus greater privledges than a women. Also I'm not even going to dignify your attempts to compare this to Soviet gulags or North Korean oppression which took place against people who had emotions and conciousness.

No our rights arn't given to us because we have some human DNA, afterall every single one of our cells is human and living.

Actually, a right requires that it is inalienable - otherwise it is not a right, but a privilege granted by the state. Since you are a human and humans are intrinsically rational beings - you have inalienable rights precisely because you are human.

All of our cells are human, but only a zygote is A human. Only a zygote naturally develops into an adult of the species. It is a unique organism.

Also in most industrialized nations abortion is legal, those courts have obviously determined that simply being human isn't what gives you rights.

So when these same nations had abortion as illegal it meant that simply being human is what gave you rights? When the Nazi's made Jews un-persons they were right? When Jim Crow Laws denied blacks as full persons they were right?

Using the law is a poor defense because the judiciary can be wrong.

Also criminals arn't the only ones we treat differently than the majority. For example its illigal to have sex with someone below the age of consent due to their state of mind and lack of physical maturity.

However, it is not illegal for two underage people of the same age to engage in sex. This is because they cannot understand the consequences of their actions. Thus it is a protection against them being taken advantage of.

However, none of this is a denial of rights, but a protection of rights.

This is just one example of society treating individuals different based on their stage in development.

Lastly criteria for personhood will vary from person to person but I rely on emotional complexity and consciousness.

So in other words it is a subjective criteria, which means that rights are not really rights.

Of course, in the end most of the ways people use to determine personhood would have to accept the vast majority of vertebrates as people before a human fetus could be granted personhood.

Except for the logical one that I presented. Which has only one objective criteria.

Ultimately any characteristic a fetus has, other animals will have as well.

Except for a rational nature intrinsic to our species. No other animal has that - which is precisely why we make use of animals in a way we wouldn't other humans.

Again humans do not have inalienable rights, we are defined by our DNA and because there are many other things that have human DNA but not personhood (human cells, fetuses) it proves that whole concept incorrect.

If you don't have inalienable rights you have no rights. Assuming that you're American, the foundation of your whole nation is based on the very concept of fundamental rights. If there were no fundamental rights there was no real reason to end slavery. If there are no fundamental rights, the Russian Gulags were perfectly just, and North Korea is just as valid as us in terms of human rights.

Also its going to take more than comparing them to the nazis to convince courts that a fetus is a person, you actually have to provide evidence that it has the traits for personhood, not just make references to times in which we were wrong about it.

Personhood is immaterial if there are no fundamental rights. Personhood becomes merely a word game that we play, because we then become free to include or exclude on a whim.

Lastly rationality is not intrinsic to our species, after all you still have not proven the fetus has these traits.

Rationality is intrinsic because we are naturally ordered to being rational. Gophers do not suddenly write poetry, and humans don't randomly live merely on instinct. We are intrinsically ordered to rationality.

If you want the fetus to have personhood rights you need to prove that it has the characteristics nessecary.

Sure: it is an organism that is intrinsically ordered to rationality. What this does is show that humanity is a subset of personhood, not a superset. Humans are persons, intelligent space aliens would be persons, self realizing computers could be persons, and even angels (if you believe they exist) would be persons.

Is someone in a coma a person? They have no active rationality.

The courts arn't going to give a fetus personhood rights because at some point later in their lives they will develop rationality, and they certainly wont be forcing a woman to give birth to it. You have yet to give a reason that the fetus deserves these rights and its going to take a lot more than saying its "ordered to rationality" (despite not having the trait at that time) to give a fetus greater privledges than a women. Also I'm not even going to dignify your attempts to compare this to Soviet gulags or North Korean oppression which took place against people who had emotions and conciousness.

No our rights arn't given to us because we have some human DNA, afterall every single one of our cells is human and living.

Actually, a right requires that it is inalienable - otherwise it is not a right, but a privilege granted by the state. Since you are a human and humans are intrinsically rational beings - you have inalienable rights precisely because you are human.

All of our cells are human, but only a zygote is A human. Only a zygote naturally develops into an adult of the species. It is a unique organism.

Also in most industrialized nations abortion is legal, those courts have obviously determined that simply being human isn't what gives you rights.

So when these same nations had abortion as illegal it meant that simply being human is what gave you rights? When the Nazi's made Jews un-persons they were right? When Jim Crow Laws denied blacks as full persons they were right?

Using the law is a poor defense because the judiciary can be wrong.

Also criminals arn't the only ones we treat differently than the majority. For example its illigal to have sex with someone below the age of consent due to their state of mind and lack of physical maturity.

However, it is not illegal for two underage people of the same age to engage in sex. This is because they cannot understand the consequences of their actions. Thus it is a protection against them being taken advantage of.

However, none of this is a denial of rights, but a protection of rights.

This is just one example of society treating individuals different based on their stage in development.

Lastly criteria for personhood will vary from person to person but I rely on emotional complexity and consciousness.

So in other words it is a subjective criteria, which means that rights are not really rights.

Of course, in the end most of the ways people use to determine personhood would have to accept the vast majority of vertebrates as people before a human fetus could be granted personhood.

Except for the logical one that I presented. Which has only one objective criteria.

Ultimately any characteristic a fetus has, other animals will have as well.

Except for a rational nature intrinsic to our species. No other animal has that - which is precisely why we make use of animals in a way we wouldn't other humans.

Again humans do not have inalienable rights, we are defined by our DNA and because there are many other things that have human DNA but not personhood (human cells, fetuses) it proves that whole concept incorrect.

If you don't have inalienable rights you have no rights. Assuming that you're American, the foundation of your whole nation is based on the very concept of fundamental rights. If there were no fundamental rights there was no real reason to end slavery. If there are no fundamental rights, the Russian Gulags were perfectly just, and North Korea is just as valid as us in terms of human rights.

Also its going to take more than comparing them to the nazis to convince courts that a fetus is a person, you actually have to provide evidence that it has the traits for personhood, not just make references to times in which we were wrong about it.

Personhood is immaterial if there are no fundamental rights. Personhood becomes merely a word game that we play, because we then become free to include or exclude on a whim.

Lastly rationality is not intrinsic to our species, after all you still have not proven the fetus has these traits.

Rationality is intrinsic because we are naturally ordered to being rational. Gophers do not suddenly write poetry, and humans don't randomly live merely on instinct. We are intrinsically ordered to rationality.

If you want the fetus to have personhood rights you need to prove that it has the characteristics nessecary.

Sure: it is an organism that is intrinsically ordered to rationality. What this does is show that humanity is a subset of personhood, not a superset. Humans are persons, intelligent space aliens would be persons, self realizing computers could be persons, and even angels (if you believe they exist) would be persons.

Is someone in a coma a person? They have no active rationality.

The courts arn't going to give a fetus personhood rights because at some point later in their lives they will develop rationality, and they certainly wont be forcing a woman to give birth to it. You have yet to give a reason that the fetus deserves these rights and its going to take a lot more than saying its "ordered to rationality" (despite not having the trait at that time) to give a fetus greater privledges than a women. Also I'm not even going to dignify your attempts to compare this to Soviet gulags or North Korean oppression which took place against people who had emotions and conciousness.

Courts give rights?!?

To some extant yes, they can give rulings which could determine whether something is constitutional or not, like with the marriage equality decision. These rulings do have a huge affect on how our society develops. While congress and house of representatives are the ones who create laws, the courts can strike them down.

No our rights arn't given to us because we have some human DNA, afterall every single one of our cells is human and living.

Actually, a right requires that it is inalienable - otherwise it is not a right, but a privilege granted by the state. Since you are a human and humans are intrinsically rational beings - you have inalienable rights precisely because you are human.

All of our cells are human, but only a zygote is A human. Only a zygote naturally develops into an adult of the species. It is a unique organism.

Also in most industrialized nations abortion is legal, those courts have obviously determined that simply being human isn't what gives you rights.

So when these same nations had abortion as illegal it meant that simply being human is what gave you rights? When the Nazi's made Jews un-persons they were right? When Jim Crow Laws denied blacks as full persons they were right?

Using the law is a poor defense because the judiciary can be wrong.

Also criminals arn't the only ones we treat differently than the majority. For example its illigal to have sex with someone below the age of consent due to their state of mind and lack of physical maturity.

However, it is not illegal for two underage people of the same age to engage in sex. This is because they cannot understand the consequences of their actions. Thus it is a protection against them being taken advantage of.

However, none of this is a denial of rights, but a protection of rights.

This is just one example of society treating individuals different based on their stage in development.

Lastly criteria for personhood will vary from person to person but I rely on emotional complexity and consciousness.

So in other words it is a subjective criteria, which means that rights are not really rights.

Of course, in the end most of the ways people use to determine personhood would have to accept the vast majority of vertebrates as people before a human fetus could be granted personhood.

Except for the logical one that I presented. Which has only one objective criteria.

Ultimately any characteristic a fetus has, other animals will have as well.

Except for a rational nature intrinsic to our species. No other animal has that - which is precisely why we make use of animals in a way we wouldn't other humans.

Again humans do not have inalienable rights, we are defined by our DNA and because there are many other things that have human DNA but not personhood (human cells, fetuses) it proves that whole concept incorrect.

If you don't have inalienable rights you have no rights. Assuming that you're American, the foundation of your whole nation is based on the very concept of fundamental rights. If there were no fundamental rights there was no real reason to end slavery. If there are no fundamental rights, the Russian Gulags were perfectly just, and North Korea is just as valid as us in terms of human rights.

Also its going to take more than comparing them to the nazis to convince courts that a fetus is a person, you actually have to provide evidence that it has the traits for personhood, not just make references to times in which we were wrong about it.

Personhood is immaterial if there are no fundamental rights. Personhood becomes merely a word game that we play, because we then become free to include or exclude on a whim.

Lastly rationality is not intrinsic to our species, after all you still have not proven the fetus has these traits.

Rationality is intrinsic because we are naturally ordered to being rational. Gophers do not suddenly write poetry, and humans don't randomly live merely on instinct. We are intrinsically ordered to rationality.

If you want the fetus to have personhood rights you need to prove that it has the characteristics nessecary.

Sure: it is an organism that is intrinsically ordered to rationality. What this does is show that humanity is a subset of personhood, not a superset. Humans are persons, intelligent space aliens would be persons, self realizing computers could be persons, and even angels (if you believe they exist) would be persons.

Is someone in a coma a person? They have no active rationality.

The courts arn't going to give a fetus personhood rights because at some point later in their lives they will develop rationality, and they certainly wont be forcing a woman to give birth to it. You have yet to give a reason that the fetus deserves these rights and its going to take a lot more than saying its "ordered to rationality" (despite not having the trait at that time) to give a fetus greater privledges than a women. Also I'm not even going to dignify your attempts to compare this to Soviet gulags or North Korean oppression which took place against people who had emotions and conciousness.

Courts give rights?!?

To some extant yes, they can give rulings which could determine whether something is constitutional or not, like with the marriage equality decision. These rulings do have a huge affect on how our society develops. While congress and house of representatives are the ones who create laws, the courts can strike them down.

Then we have vastly differing concepts of rights. A right is something that you have as an natural consequence of who and what you are. No government has the right to take it away from you. You on the other hand view rights as something mutable by the courts and government - and are thus merely societal privileges. A societal privilege can be taken away, a right cannot.

That is why the declaration of independence stated exactly why the US had the right to secede from England and form its own nation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If you don't believe that and you do believe that the courts make laws, you should be demanding that the US rescind its independence and rejoin England as a colony. The law is absolute after all.

At 8/5/2015 6:28:30 PM, kp98 wrote:I'm not justifying their actions, but I have a question for you. If you lived in Nazi Germany and you knew your neighbour operated the gas chambers, and you knew what was being done. What would you do? Do you think you'd be justified in attacking him?

Just curious.

I don't see the connection, but it would be rude to ignore a direct question.Well, is he doing it because he is a fanatical anti-semitic nazi or because he was starving and desperate for a job? Even in the former case I wouldn't attack him physically - it would be a pointless, futile and suicidally dangerous thing to do in Nazi germany.

Just to keep going with the thought experiment. If that same man was going to pick your family up tomorrow morning to take your family to the gas chamber, would you kill him to stop him if it was necessary?

On another track, would you leave Germany (assuming you could), and join an Allied army in order to bring this to an end?

Is it worth pointing out that anti-abortionists have killed for their cause, which AFAIK pro-abortionists haven't.

You kill countless bacteria when you brush your teeth. And yet none of them are homo sapiens...

Humans. Pro-abortionists kill thousands of humans every single day.

But what makes these humans so special, is it because they have the largest penises out of all primates? Why are humans valued but not other animals?

I really don't get what penises have to do with anything. Human beings are the most intelligent known species. Even Chimpanzees, Gorillas, and Dolphins haven't come close to the human level of sophistication and intelligence.I made a thread a while back about group learning. This is basically how humans have developed. Even Chimpanzees have not shared this trait; the group has not learned anything significant over thousands of years.